Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:11AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the resign:-to-sign-and-sign-again? dept.

Richard M. Stallman Resigns as FSF President and from its Board of Directors

https://www.fsf.org/news/richard-m-stallman-resigns (emphasis from original retained):

On September 16, 2019, Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of
the Free Software Foundation, resigned as president and from its board
of directors.

The board will be conducting a search for a new president, beginning
immediately. Further details of the search will be published on
fsf.org.

For questions, contact FSF executive director John Sullivan at
johns@fsf.org.

Copyright © 2004-2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Privacy Policy.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license (or later version)Why this license?

Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Resigns from MIT Over Epstein Comments

Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Resigns From MIT Over Epstein Comments

Famed free software advocate and computer scientist Richard Stallman has resigned from MIT, according to an email he published online. The resignation comes after Stallman made comments about victims of child trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, including that the victims went along with the abuse willingly.

"I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT," Stallman wrote in the email, referring to MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. "I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations."

[...] Last week, Motherboard published the full email thread in which Stallman wrote that the "most plausible scenario" is that Epstein's underage victims in his campaign of trafficking were "entirely willing." Stallman also argued about the definition of "rape" and whether the term applies to the victims.

[Ed.'s note - just because Vice say things in the above blockquote does not mean that SoylentNews or its editors consider it a demonstrably provable representation of reality. We're just reporting that they are reporting, nothing more. At least this Ed. finds out-of-context quoting of short inflamatory phrases to be particularly disingenuous, and perhaps even a warning sign that manipulation of a quote has taking place. -- FP.]


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

Related Stories

Free Software Advocates Seek Removal of Richard Stallman and Entire FSF Board 221 comments

Free software advocates seek removal of Richard Stallman and entire FSF board:

Richard Stallman's return to the Free Software Foundation's board of directors has drawn condemnation from many people in the free software community. An open letter signed by hundreds of people today called for Stallman to be removed again and for the FSF's entire board to resign.

The open letter said:

        Richard M. Stallman, frequently known as RMS, has been a dangerous force in the free software community for a long time. He has shown himself to be misogynist, ableist, and transphobic, among other serious accusations of impropriety. These sorts of beliefs have no place in the free software, digital rights, and tech communities. With his recent reinstatement to the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation, we call for the entire Board of the FSF to step down and for RMS to be removed from all leadership positions.

Previously:
Richard Stallman Rejoins Free Software Foundation Board of Directors
Richard M. Stallman Resigns
Richard Stallman Deserved to be Fired, Says Fired GNU Hurd Maintainer


Original Submission

Lawrence Lessig Sues New York Times for Defamation Over "Misleading Headline" 21 comments

Lawrence Lessig sues New York Times over MIT and Jeffrey Epstein interview

Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig is suing The New York Times over an interview about the MIT Media Lab accepting money from sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Lessig's defamation suit covers a September 2019 article titled "A Harvard Professor Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein's Money, Do It in Secret." He claims the headline misrepresents his interview, where he condemns the donation, but says that "if you're going to take the money, you damn well better make it anonymous."

Lessig is the founder of Creative Commons and a longtime policy activist; he once ran for president on the promise to pass a single anti-corruption law and then resign. He's also a friend of former MIT Media Lab president Joichi Ito. When Ito admitted last year to secretly receiving around $800,000 from Epstein, Lessig signed a supportive letter and argued that accepting secret donations was better than publicly laundering a criminal's reputation — although he said taking Epstein's money at all was wrong in retrospect.

Times reporter Nellie Bowles interviewed Lessig about the donations and appeared unimpressed by his reasoning. "It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying," she wrote in the article's opening paragraph. Lessig quickly dubbed the piece "clickbait defamation" by the Times. Now, he's turned that accusation into an actual defamation complaint and launched it with a full-fledged multimedia campaign, including a website called "Lessig v. Clickbait Defamation" and a related podcast.

Related:
Lawrence Lessig Considering US Presidential Bid
Wikipedia's Jimbo Wales Joins Lawrence Lessig Presidential Campaign
Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race with his DNA
Richard M. Stallman Resigns
Richard Stallman Deserved to be Fired, Says Fired GNU Hurd Maintainer


Original Submission

Richard Stallman Rejoins Free Software Foundation Board of Directors 69 comments

Richard Stallman says he has returned to the Free Software Foundation board of directors and won't be resigning again

Richard M Stallman, founder and former president of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), announced at the organisation's LibrePlanet virtual event that he has rejoined the board and does not intend to resign again.

Stallman spoke at the event yesterday on the subject of unjust computing – covering locked-down operating systems, non-free client software, user-restricting app stores, and more.

Before the talk he stated: "I have an announcement to make. I'm now on the Free Software Foundation Board of Directors once again. We were working on a video to announce this with, but that turned out to be difficult, we didn't have experience doing that sort of thing so it didn't get finished but here is the announcement. Some of you will be happy at this, and some might be disappointed, but who knows? In any case, that's how it is, and I'm not planning to resign a second time."

Ars Technica further notes:

Video of Stallman's announcement is available at It's FOSS News. Stallman gave a talk at LibrePlanet yesterday on "growing injustices in computing," including "locked-down operating systems; user-restricting app stores; [and] requiring nonfree client software, including Javascript."

Previously:
Richard M. Stallman Resigns
Richard Stallman Deserved to be Fired, Says Fired GNU Hurd Maintainer


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:15AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:15AM (#895010)

    Toe Jam In Mouth

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:37AM (24 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:37AM (#895015)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:43AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:43AM (#895016)

      What has he done that is of importance recently? It's not unusual for a 66 year old to retire anyway.

      It will be funny to see which camp picks the successor.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:52AM (2 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:52AM (#895021) Journal

        What has he done that is of importance recently?

        EMACS.
        Being an entire Universe (don't you dare to call it just an OS), emacs is eternal.
        By comparison to eternity, when it comes to "recently", 30 years more or less just doesn't register.

        (grin)

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:16AM (1 child)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:16AM (#895426) Journal

          Emacs is an interesting desktop shell, but its editor kinda sucks...

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:34AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:34AM (#895437)

            > ... but its editor kinda sucks...

            ... but its author kinda sucks...
            ftfy!

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by choose another one on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:41PM

        by choose another one (515) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:41PM (#895135)

        What has he done that is of importance recently?

        Well, one thing of note (and particularly wrt. the GP post) is that he gave a talk at Microsoft - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/09/05/richard_stallman_microsoft/ [theregister.co.uk]

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:25AM (16 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:25AM (#895055)

      Do anyone know of other news articles that cover this story without bashing Stallman? The techrights.org story covers the details nicely, but also has a lot of anti-MS ranting that I feel does not have a place outside of the most devout linux hippie circles. Searching through the usual news aggregators turns up the same tripe about "Renowned MIT Scientist Defends Epstein: Victims Were 'Entirely Willing'"

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by canopic jug on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:44AM (5 children)

        by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:44AM (#895060) Journal

        If you do find any, do post the links, but I would be surprised that any accurate accounting of the messages actually exist. Outside of Techrights.org and a few mailing lists, I've only seen the same anti-RMS tripe filled with false statements, lies. I would not be surprised if some of it was even partially preplanned. Even some inside the FSF turned on him, opportunists or moles. The media has been active in spreading lies and misrepresenting the situation. Either way, there is great damage being wrought against our software freedom. M$ has been finding ways to work around the letter of individual licenses. Here is a handful of their methods:

        • Witch hunts against software leaders and key developers
        • License proliferation and dilution
        • Ongoing antitrust abuse
        • Yellow journalism and saturation of the media
        • Shills and astroturfing
        • Repository takeover
        • Student indoctrination within schools
        • ...

        Anyway, the M$ rants are relevant. Not only does M$ work hard even to this day to maintain its bad reputation, its people are involved in this specific event rather directly. Bill Gates was hanging out and managing money together with Epstein, including "donations" to MIT. Gates is still up to his ears in M$.

        --
        Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @01:30AM (9 children)

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @01:30AM (#895457) Journal
        First, outside the open source world Stallman is a virtual unknown. He didn't invent open source. And the GPL isn't as free as the BSD licences, which impose no restrictions on use.

        His influence since the turn of the century has been nil in practical terms. He's been the source of multiple embarrassments, and, as in this case, he's shown, like most zealots, no common sense. He has once again shown that he's a misogynist, and this time it's not going to be brushed away.

        Ultimately history will probably show that his license enabled surveillance capitalism's worst excesses. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon wouldn't have been able to scale up if they had to pay licence fees for each operating system copy, web server, database server, and other software.

        The world would be a better place without Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Stallman. And for those who cannot see this at first blush, why not try to use your imagination of a world without social media corrupting democracy, no Trump tweets (and no president Trump), and an ecosystem with all sorts of software and a marketplace to support it, and where developers don't have to pass the begging bowl.

        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @02:22AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @02:22AM (#895472)

          And the GPL isn't as free as the BSD licences, which impose no restrictions on use.

          The BSD offers more freedom to the developers, whereas the GPL ensures freedom for the community as a whole. So, you can't take GPL'd code and just make it proprietary, which protects the freedoms of the community. And the community is almost always larger than the number of developers, ensuring more freedom for a greater number of people.

          The standard of 'You can do whatever you want!' does not always result in the most amount of freedom, as confusing as that might seem.

          Ultimately history will probably show that his license enabled surveillance capitalism's worst excesses. Companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon wouldn't have been able to scale up if they had to pay licence fees for each operating system copy, web server, database server, and other software.

          So your solution to the evil actions of these companies is to make all of the computers and software we depend on proprietary? Allow users no freedom, while they're controlled by their proprietary masters? None of them are stopped by the BSD you just advocated for, either.

          Or, we could just make mass surveillance illegal directly, rather than infringing upon people's freedoms in other ways. If you think that proprietary software wouldn't spy on people and that all of those companies wouldn't be engaging in mass surveillance without the GPL, you're batshit insane. Plenty of companies create their own proprietary surveillance schemes.

          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:31PM (4 children)

            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:31PM (#895603) Journal
            And just how much freedom of choice do users have today (anything with-1% market share is essentially not a real option - the market has spoken)? Web browsers are essentially a monoculture. Same with office suites. Operating system are a duopoly., same with smart phone operating systems.

            It's hard to compete with free, so you don't see investments of time and money by developers to come up with the next big thing. No new operating systems, word processors, databases (just new iterations of the same old stuff, like Mariadb uses MySQL documentation.'

            End users used to have a plethora of simple to use databases to run their businesses on. DBASE, Alpha4, Foxbase, Clipper, etc. Now? They're stuck using excel or "the cloud", cobbled together with php Perl, Python, Ruby, Java, MySQL or mariadb or rarely postgresql and a web browser for stuff that used to be local.

            Developers have no choice. Those are the tools available, and there's no money in making new tools or new ways of doing things. Users have no choice. The forest of software has been replaced by a monoculture. Heck, most users who might have been open to trying things like Usenet news groups to get interacting with like-minded people don't have an isp that supports newsgroups any more - they are stuck with Facebook and Twitter. Even their email gets done through a monopolist web browser and harvested for data. Your so-called choice no longer exists. Not when new ideas depend on a begging bowl culture or people working in their time off for free. Eventually everyone needs to eat. The free software movement destroyed that which it attempted to foster, while making the infrastructure cheap so that surveillance capitalism is now a threat to everyone. You have less choice than 35 - 40 years ago, when the PC wasn't ubiquitous and everything was new and exciting and not the same warmed over shit by yet another group of investors chasing unicorns by fleecing users.

            --
            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:11PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:11PM (#895840)

              And just how much freedom of choice do users have today (anything with-1% market share is essentially not a real option - the market has spoken)? Web browsers are essentially a monoculture. Same with office suites. Operating system are a duopoly., same with smart phone operating systems.

              Not as much as they could have if more people knew about Free Software and supported it.

              But still, there are web browsers, operating systems, and office suites that are Free Software. Users of that software can take advantage of the freedoms available to them if they wish.

              It's hard to compete with free, so you don't see investments of time and money by developers to come up with the next big thing.

              This is a limitation that we need to overcome, and we can't do that by granting mega-corporations control over all of our computing. That surveillance capitalism you talked about? The same companies that will develop so much of the popular proprietary software are also responsible for that.

              Not when new ideas depend on a begging bowl culture or people working in their time off for free. Eventually everyone needs to eat.

              On the other hand, you can make massive amounts of money doing evil things, as we see with surveillance capitalism. The fact that you can make money doing something - such as by developing proprietary software - does not mean that it is ethical to do so. More people need to reject proprietary software so that it is no longer profitable to make it.

              The free software movement destroyed that which it attempted to foster, while making the infrastructure cheap so that surveillance capitalism is now a threat to everyone.

              Once again, you, without evidence, blame Free Software for mega-corporations violating people's privacy. They may or may not employ some Free Software to do so, but they would just make their own tools if that did not exist, given that they have so many resources.

              when the PC wasn't ubiquitous and everything was new and exciting and not the same warmed over shit by yet another group of investors chasing unicorns by fleecing users.

              If you're worried about surveillance capitalism, choice, and freedom, then you should be supporting Free Software.

              • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @10:44PM (2 children)

                by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @10:44PM (#895877) Journal

                Free software killed the market for innovative startups that worked in many spaces. You won't see another WordPerfect, ClarisWorks, FrameMaker, dBASE, dbFast, Clipper, Lotus 123, CorelDraw, Broderbund, etc. There used to be multiple computing architectures, multiple operating systems, etc.

                Why can't your bank supply a banking application that runs on your laptop or desktop? Why does it require an insecure web browser? Because developers are shit, and most couldn't write the networking code in c if their jobs depended on it. And yet they have the fucking nerve to call themselves "full stack developers." They wouldn't know a network stack if it bit them.

                Even using a framework that supplies the primitives for networking, user interface, and event handling in a platform-independent fashion is beyond them. Which is why they keep proposing shitty browser-based "solutions." Shitty management hire shitty project managers farming it out to shitty 3rd world companies who hire shitty developers because that's perceived as the safe way - building it in a browser doesn't take much beyond monkeys and some "designers" with photoshop for "concepts".

                The browser is part of the problem. So is the lack of experience by most people today of a time when computing was much more diverse and inventive, and when independent developers stood a chance of coming up with the next big thing without buzzwords like Web 2.0 and unicorn of the week and cashing out and IPO.

                Free software has killed the goose that laid innovation, because you can't compete with free even if you're 10x better, because people would rather spend months looking for free software and bending it to mostly fit their needs, even when that approach ends up costing more.

                --
                SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:54PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:54PM (#895898)

                  And the fact that you don't know that lowers any respect I had for you from some of your more balanced previous posts.

                  Barbara, you read like a BSA/ESA/RIAA/MPAA apologist.

                  Thanks for the disappointment.

                  • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:19AM

                    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:19AM (#899761) Journal
                    Microsoft didn't destroy all the competing web browsers - google did- even destroyed Microsoft Edge: -

                    The reason starOffoce, OpenOffice, and LibraOffice aren't everywhere is because they are shit (I don't use any Microsoft products, so the only shill here is you). Open source is not inherently better than, or worse than, closed source. The problem is that we are seeing that open source has a funding sustainability problem. Systemd is a good example - most users don't see a need for it, but there it is because businesses want it and are willing to pay for developing and maintaining it.

                    Most software is shit. Doesn't matter whether it's open or proprietary. Zealots have to come up with an answer to sustainable funding for open source, or more people are going to develop for closed source. Take a look at all the closed source apps. Vastly outnumber the open source ones. Same with games, and games are the biggest financial revenue generator in computing today.

                    Those games have a sustainable revenue model that has produced competition and sequels. Can't say the same for open source games, can you? Lincity, Pingus, Etc,... not anywhere in the same league.

                    Devs need to eat. Proprietary development pays, so proprietary developers can eat. I would love if there were some magic way to make open source make as much economic sense for devs, but it's not happening. Same as I would like world peace and an end to corruption, but that's not happening either.

                    --
                    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
        • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @06:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @06:57PM (#895777)

          Better than being known as a blundering lazy do nothing all talk erroneous bullshit artist in yourself barbara hudson as you're known for fails on C\C++ null-terminated string buffer overflow security issues slower string performance they have pascal doesn't https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=33430&page=1&cid=889635#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] You blundering idiot caught red-handed stalking apk by unidentifiable anonymous posts proven in you quoted tranny (as tomhudson whom you really are loon). Apk destroyed you in that link easily!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:12PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:12PM (#895841)

          " And the GPL isn't as free as the BSD licences, which impose no restrictions on use. "

          omg, stfu with your whores' licenses. the licenses that let corporate scum leach off of FOSS devs who can barely afford to provide for themselves or their families.

          • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @10:52PM

            by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @10:52PM (#895879) Journal
            What you said applies equally to the GPL. Stallman and his bullshit "you can earn a living by selling support " is a lie - he couldn't even make a living out of it himself, spending his days squatting in the MIT lab or couch surfing.for years. At least now he's gone.
            --
            SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:17PM (#895177)

      Microsoft has already demonstrated the power to censor the Internet. [deepfreeze.it] That big kerfuffle in 2014 turned out to be a Saudi/Qatari spy ring with assets in the White House, Home Office, and the top of Wall Street. Among other things, they were shipping everyone's social media histories to Qatar and letting the Muslims decide who should be banned.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:46PM (#895371)

      Wait 20 years until the shenanigans Satan Nutella Yella and his Hindian pals are up to come to light. Then today's 'big' Epstein / Trump / Stallman bag-o-dirt will be just a blip on the radar. You read it here first, folks.

      On the plus side, now we can say "linux" without being corrected :)

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:45AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:45AM (#895017)

    Between this and Trump's pussy grabbing? I'll side with Trump. The democrats are insane!

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:51AM (49 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:51AM (#895020)

    He did not argue "that the victims went along with the abuse willingly".

    He argued that they may have presented themselves this way (for example under coercion of Epstein) and that the people who may have had sex with them are thus not necessarily as guilty as they seem.

    He also argued a technicality about pedophilia (the term doesn't apply to post-puberty) and he pointed out that the moral situation isn't as simple as the legal situation due to varying age of consent and general disagreement around the world.

    People just want a witch hunt, and he was a fine target. Nasty people got their thrill targetting a pretty darn weird dude who probably is a bit autistic.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:54AM (10 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:54AM (#895022) Journal

      Have citations?
      (yes, I know, I'm a lazy bum asking for a favor. Will you indulge me?)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:38AM (9 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:38AM (#895033) Homepage Journal

        Here you go.

        A redacted (names of folks other than Stallman) version of the email thread can be found here:
        https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing [vice.com]

        I read through it and Stallman did not defend Epstein in any way, nor did he do any victim blaming. He did speculate that while Marvin Minsky (and possibly others) may have had sex with the woman in question, they may (and based on his reasoning, it seems likely) have been unaware that she was being coerced into these acts by Epstein.

        For this he's forced to resign? It seems like reading comprehension can be pretty poor when you have an axe to grind.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:17AM (3 children)

          by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:17AM (#895052) Journal
          There's no thread there.

          Presumably, it's encrypted in some ecmatrocity.

          If it was on a public list it should be available uncensored, do you see any details that might help, like the listserv address or equiv?
          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:14AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:14AM (#895070) Journal

          Thanks for it!
          (in between I found it on my own, but thank you anyway)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:53PM (3 children)

          by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @05:53PM (#895298)

          Thanks!

          So from what I can tell, this is really about defending 'deceased AI "pioneer" Marvin Minsky'. Stallman's basic point is that "sexual assault" is a very broad term that in this case implies worse behavior than Minsky was likely guilty of.

          It seems to me that everyone in this discussion besides Stallman was rightfully concerned that it would be shared with the media and misconstrued. I would be too, because there was not enough acknowledgement of real crimes committed. After all, the only thing he is doing is defending someone who at best knowingly had sex with a minor whom he should have had reason to believe was coerced.

          He's got a valid academic point about "sexual assault", but it is completely overshadowed by the context. Stallman was given opportunity and explicitly refused to concede there was any wrongdoing at all.

          Do I want to see Stallman burn for this? No. But he can't be allowed to perpetuate the culture of protecting influential friends from their own sexual indiscretions.

          Unfortunately, Stallman is the sort of person who thinks too logically to understand the emotional context of his argument. There needs to be a concession of wrongdoing. There needs to be a sincere apology and unambiguous statements of facts I'm sure Stallman can agree on. But I don't think he'd be willing to make any such statements until he feels his argument has been rationally considered.

          So maybe this could have been avoided if somebody fully engaged his argument. Unfortunately, it seems everyone else was rightfully concerned about being associated with the thing at all.

          It all adds up to this: defending sexual indiscretion in any way is no longer socially acceptable. The only acceptable defense is complete refutation with appropriate evidence.

          It's bad for the sexually indiscreet. It's unfortunate that it's also bad for fans of abstract rational argument devoid of emotional context.

          There may be an alternative that spares Stallman and still holds abusers responsible. I don't know what that would look like. Realistically, it seems we only have two options right now: demonize anybody associated with abuse, including rational defenders; or allow abusers safe haven in ambiguity.

          --
          If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:23PM (2 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:23PM (#895330) Homepage Journal

            Realistically, it seems we only have two options right now: demonize anybody associated with abuse, including rational defenders; or allow abusers safe haven in ambiguity.

            I strongly disagree.

            There are a variety of other options available:
            1. Remain silent on a topic that has nothing to do with you (Stallman was only "involved" in that an organization of which he was a part made stupid decisions -- and Stallman played no part in those decisions and Marvin Minsky was his friend -- Minsky is dead and can't defend himself);
            2. Speak cogently and logically (as Stallman did -- I don't necessarily agree with his previously expressed views, but they aren't relevant to the email thread in question) and address evidence that is available, seeking additional evidence where appropriate;
            3. Condemn the abuser(s) and don't blame the victim(s) (Stallman did that too, BTW) Epstein was convicted of some pretty heinous stuff and stood accused of more equally heinous acts. (Stallman did not excuse Epstein, nor did he say that the victim was "willing," rather he said that Minsky was likely unaware of the coercion and abuse. Whether that's true or not, it's a reasonable argument.)

            Perhaps I'm missing something and maybe I should re-read the email thread. However, it seems to me that even the argument that Minsky engaged in statutory rape (although a witness appears to have claimed that Minsky did not engage in sex with the victim) seems a little problematic too. The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16 [ageofconsent.net]. From a reasonable (not even rational) standpoint, does anyone (unless they are planning sex tourism) look up the minutiae of local age of consent laws every time they go to a different jurisdiction? What's more, can you (or anyone else) tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old without looking at a birth certificate or driver's license? I can't.

            Epstein was a slimebag, and those who aided him are too. The victim was abused and folks need to be held accountable for that abuse.

            However, demonizing someone for stating an opinion and speculating about the circumstances while acknowledging the wrongdoing is stupid and mean-spirited IMHO.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:11PM (1 child)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:11PM (#895887) Journal
              There are other considerations that come into play. Adults who have been groomed by sex traffickers can't really be said to be giving consent. That's why there's such a problem in North America with adult sex slavery.

              As for considering it unemotionally, there's a blind spot most men have, not having been victims of sexual assault, rape, etc. Only someone who was already seriously fucked up mentally wouldn't be emotionally affected. Just look at how many men don't consider exposing themselves to women to be that big a deal, or try to argue no real harm was done. They don't get the gender power dynamics or the grossness of it. And when it comes to sexual assault and rape, Stallman is guilty of trying to deflect, minimize, and victim-blame, same as the other times he's creeped out women.

              The only problem I see is that he should have been dumped long ago. It's not like this is the first time, but too many people chose to overlook the signs because the complaints were from women.

              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:26AM

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:26AM (#895912) Homepage Journal

                There are other considerations that come into play. Adults who have been groomed by sex traffickers can't really be said to be giving consent. That's why there's such a problem in North America with adult sex slavery.

                No one, including Richard Stallman claimed that the victim consented. What's more, a witness says that Minsky didn't accept the offer of sex from the victim (and again no one, including Richard Stallman suggested that the victim wasn't coerced to make that offer).

                As for considering it unemotionally, there's a blind spot most men have, not having been victims of sexual assault, rape, etc. Only someone who was already seriously fucked up mentally wouldn't be emotionally affected. Just look at how many men don't consider exposing themselves to women to be that big a deal, or try to argue no real harm was done.

                I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never exposed myself to anyone without their consent. And while other folks I know may have done so, I am unaware of it. Such behavior is a big deal. It's anti-social, nasty and completely inappropriate -- which is why it is (and rightly so) a *crime*.

                I'm sure it's been done many times by many different men, and they should be held accountable for those actions. Again, no one, including Richard Stallman suggested otherwise.

                And when it comes to sexual assault and rape, Stallman is guilty of trying to deflect, minimize, and victim-blame, same as the other times he's creeped out women.

                I can only speak to the email thread associated with the claims that he "suggested that the victim was willing." I read through that email chain, and in that email chain Stallman *speculated* that Minsky (and possibly others) were unaware of the coercion by Epstein and *thought* she was willing. He absolutely did not claim that the victim was willing or consented. I'll say that again: Stallman did not claim that the victim was willing and consented. What's more, Stallman explicitly stated that the victim should be believed.

                If you believe that assessment is incorrect, please provide me with the text of the emails that shows otherwise.

                Stallman was completely off-base when talking about what is and isn't sexual assault. Not that it isn't a broad term that is interpreted in a variety of different ways by different folks (although the law is and should be the arbiter of what is sexual assault).

                Stallman failed several times to understand how his unemotional and pedantic treatment of the situation would be perceived and interpreted by others. That was stupid.

                As for his motivations, he was defending a friend (who is dead and can't defend himself) who, by at least one credible account, did not engage in the behavior (that you and I both find repugnant) of which he was accused.

                I can't speak to "the other times" as I am unfamiliar (should I be scouring the web for accounts of peoples' misdeeds all day every day? Sorry. I have better things to do with my time) with them.

                I did, however, read the text of the email chain for which Stallman was accused of "victim blaming" and "supporting rape/sexual assault." In that particular email chain, he did neither. He may have done so at other times in other venues and situations. If so, then he was wrong.

                So. Even though I have roundly criticized anything non-consensual repeatedly on SN (go ahead and see for yourself https://soylentnews.org/~NotSanguine), [soylentnews.org] completely reject any form of non-consensual sexual activity in my life, and explicitly condemned (in this very discussion) Epstein and everyone who enabled/assisted him as slimebags who deserve to be tried for their *crimes*, will you now label me a misogynist and supporter of rape and abuse because the facts (in this particular case) don't fit the story being told and I had the temerity to say so?

                I will say this again so that I'm being perfectly clear and I do not wish to be misunderstood:
                1. Epstein and all those around him who abused, coerced and took advantage of women and girls are criminals and should be treated accordingly;
                2. Consent is *never* optional. Full stop;
                3. Richard Stallman, in the emails that were the basis for the current brouhaha, did not blame the victim, nor did he encourage or defend rape or sexual assault;
                4. If I have missed anything in the email chain mentioned above (3) that contradicts my statement (3), Please show me where that is and I will modify my statement to accurately reflect the facts.

                You believe that Stallman is an enabler of rape/sexual assault and has spoken and acted in ways that are inappropriate and possibly criminal. That may well be true. I have no information one way or the other, so I make no judgement about that. I don't generally concern myself with the private lives or legal travails of others unless they are shoved in my face or directly affect me.

                I will say this one more time: Consent is *never* optional. Full stop.

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by bussdriver on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:18AM (7 children)

      by bussdriver (6876) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:18AM (#895026)

      People who don't like Stallman for other reasons can turn Troll and just amplify the problem because they are evil pricks. Bad teens can do it and you probably have seen it or had a sibling do a minor version to you just out of SPITE.

      This is when all those people come out and pounce. Aside from all the shallow people desperate for another righteous "fix" that always existed in history, gravitating to mobs and stoking those... same psychology as literal witch hunts, crusades etc.

      Stallman was discussing a topic with more intelligence than the internet could handle and it wasn't written for the general public on the internet; he'd have to dumb it down greatly for them... sadly one was on staff; possibly not offended as they were being spiteful.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:13AM (6 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:13AM (#895050) Journal

        Stallman was discussing a topic with more intelligence than the internet could handle and it wasn't written for the general public on the internet

        It is not wise to use intelligence when discussing matter of law.
        You know? The IANAL acronym got its notoriety for good reasons - and this is a very good example on why those reasons are rational (even if they are illogical).

        Otherwise:
        1. this page contains the leaked mail thread [vice.com] (or use https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6405929/pages/09132019142056-0001-p1-normal.gif [documentcloud.org] and cycle in the [1-20] range with the number in the trailing "p1-normal.gif")
        2. Stallman might not have needed to get involved in this anyway; it seems that there is a witness able to exonerate the friend Stallman was trying to defend: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/339725/ [pjmedia.com]

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:02AM (5 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:02AM (#895088) Homepage
          My respect for Stallman has increased - he's the only one who doesn't seem to top-post!
          --
          I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:21PM (4 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:21PM (#895122) Journal

            On Monday September 16, 22:02, FatPhil (pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi) wrote:
            > My respect for Stallman [...] - he's the only one who doesn't seem to top-post!

            I prefer bottom-interleaved-with-trimming posting style too (Pine was my first email client).
            This being said, it's not the most useful style for blind people using text-to-voice, as they need to listen again something they already know before they get to the new stuff (trimming/summarizing becomes a show of consideration)

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:39PM (3 children)

              by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:39PM (#895133) Homepage
              Why would a screen reader be any less capable of offering to read out marked-up-as-quoted material, or to skip past it, or even delete it, even paragraph by paragraph, and even to split the paragraph if desired?

              If Linus Torvalds, Nazi hater of downtrodden minorities that he is (or so I read in a story about RMS earlier today), can add 'add -p' to git, why can't other people add equivalent functionality to their software?
              --
              I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
              • (Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @02:04PM (2 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @02:04PM (#895143) Journal

                Why would a screen reader be any less capable of offering to read out marked-up-as-quoted material...

                I don't know, is it because they don't have the power of emacs behind and RMS didn't bother to implement a text-to-speech extension in emacs?

                If Linus Torvalds, Nazi hater of downtrodden minorities that he is (or so I read in a story about RMS earlier today), can add 'add -p' to git, why can't other people add equivalent functionality to their software?

                Because definitely such a thing does use neither blockchains nor deep-AI, it's just something plain boring and useful.

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:22PM (1 child)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:22PM (#895889) Journal
                  Why not try a screen reader for yourself - the answer will become obvious even to a blind person :-)

                  Simple answer - screen readers lack intelligence , and adding intelligence would mean that they may make wrong assumptions and not give an accurate rendering of what is written. For example, skipping stuff already read previously may give the false impression it's the start of a new thread.

                  Same with any other sort of markup - which is why you include quotation marks for people who use screen readers - they will say "quote" (you can even modify them to say "scary quotes ".

                  Hopefully that answers your question.

                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:34PM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:34PM (#895892) Journal

                    Hopefully that answers your question

                    (Note to myself: grin more often, possibly in bold)

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by janrinok on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:11AM (9 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:11AM (#895047) Journal

      This is just about as off-topic as it can get!

      --
      It's always my fault...
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by chromas on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:04AM (8 children)

        by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:04AM (#895066) Journal

        What do you mean? The AC was talking about what's in the summary and article, and the article author's lack of reading comprehension. It's not like he was talking about toilets or systemd. It's just about as on-topic as it can get.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:27AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:27AM (#895074) Journal
          We will have to agree to disagree.
          --
          It's always my fault...
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by janrinok on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:41AM (6 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:41AM (#895076) Journal
          I misread, and I was wrong. I withdraw my comment.
          --
          It's always my fault...
          • (Score: 2) by chromas on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:19AM (5 children)

            by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:19AM (#895081) Journal

            👍

            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:01AM (4 children)

              by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:01AM (#895420) Journal

              On the face of it, janrinok's comment has +2 karma, but if one peeks slightly behind the scenes, you can see he has garnered a extremely rare pure 4-disagree modding. Kudos, janrinok!

              --
              You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday September 18 2019, @06:44AM (3 children)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 18 2019, @06:44AM (#895521) Journal
                Look more closely - it's -5 Disagree thank you! :)
                --
                It's always my fault...
                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday September 18 2019, @07:37AM (1 child)

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday September 18 2019, @07:37AM (#895530) Journal

                  Ah, but there is no "minus" to Disagree! Only a suggestion that a particular Editor might be slightly in error about the sense of the soylentils. There is no "plus" to Disagree, as well.

                  --
                  You are currently banned from moderating. The last day of your ban is 2022-03-25.
                  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:57AM

                    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:57AM (#895552) Journal

                    You did see this [soylentnews.org] from yesterday, didn't you?

                    After chromas pointed out he disagreed, I re-read the comment, corrected myself, and withdrew the comment. The other 'Disagrees', including yours, all appeared after that. I guess you/they hadn't read the thread in full before commenting.

                    --
                    It's always my fault...
                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:24PM

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:24PM (#895890) Journal
                  Awesome.. but it would be much more impress if you scored the elusive (mythical?) +5 troll.
                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:37AM

      by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:37AM (#895075) Homepage
      Thank you for this brief rebuttal - I've added a note to the summary to help distance SN itself from any inaccuracies there may be in the quoted articles.

      Part of the inevitable discussion that will follow from a story like this will be concepts such as witch-hunts, including how biased media can support or enflame such witch-hunts either accidentally or deliberately. Because of that, pointing a light at possibly-biased[*] media to see what they say and how they say it is still useful.

      [* whaaaaat? I'm FatPhil the poster here, not FP the editor, so don't have to remain so neutral and can say it out loud - they're dirty dirty smear merchants! ]
      --
      I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:58AM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @09:58AM (#895087)

      Attempting to defend Minsky Mr. Stallman argued:
          * A newspaper article used the term, "assault."
          * The newspaper article said nothing other than they had sex.
          * He speculates (without any evidence at all other than absence of what is in the article) that the sex was "entirely willing" is the most plausible solution.
          * "Sexual assault" is a slippery term and should not be used, and it is difficult to read in context if he is referring to this specific case or generally.

      He then as you suggest states in a later email, "I think it is morally absurd to define "rape" in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old instead of 17."

      Someone else then ventures the opinion that whether Mr. Stallman finds it morally absurd or not that is what the law is.

      Let's ignore that he still uses the term "victim" which may be error or may be a Freudian slip of epic proportions which shows he's still able to recognize such a person as a victim. Let's ignore that he is not talking only about abstract intellectual principles but is actively trying to defend a colleague and friend (Dr. Minsky), which makes this entire thing a personal matter and not merely intellectual.

      Mr. Stallman then asks for sourcing on the accusation, and someone else provides a source at The Verge which states (according to that author) that it unequivocally stated the sex was forced. If Mr. Stallman made a reply to that it isn't seen at the Vice source. Since that is all public now (assuming the integrity of the publicized email chain, which might be a line of defense).

      In attempting to defend Dr. Minsky he reasoned from absence of evidence that the sex was most plausibly consensual and that therefore no assault took place. He calls into question that terms like assault shouldn't be generally applied until it is publicly known that force was applied, which given the known facts now is incorrect and comes across as victim-blaming when the allegations are in fact assault. He then finds it absurd that statutory rape should be a crime.

      That's more than a witch hunt. Mr. Stallman can indeed make a public apology for where he is wrong in his interpretations, to wit that assault was indeed stipulated in a source he didn't have, and that an allegation of assault is indeed an allegation of assault and shouldn't be swept under the table by saying, "maybe it was consensual," and make other such stipulations. And since he did it all on the CSAIL mailing list then yes, this can cost him his job.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:07AM (8 children)

        by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:07AM (#895090) Homepage
        > unequivocally stated the sex was forced

        Yet another person, someone who was at the event, unequivocally stated the sex never even took place, as he saw Minsky decline it, and then even spoke to Minsky afterwards about it. See pjmedia link upthread.
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:05PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:05PM (#895117)

          That is not what Stallman was saying in the emails. He was saying that because the article he said never said it was forced it was therefore unfair to call it an assault. Specifically he suggests it was, "accusation inflation." That was put back into his face that it was not an inflation. Regardless of Dr. Minksy's innocence the charge was leveled that it occurred.

          Regardless of Dr. Minsky's guilt or innocence "sexual assault" is not a slippery term, in fact it is quite definable legally and psychologically, and neither is statutory rape. When others tried to point out that because she was 17 it doesn't matter if the act was consensual or not a further rationalization was put forth that the concept is in error. Which was then corrected by simply stating that this is the law, whether or not he finds it morally acceptable.

          If he was trying to defend Dr. Minsky this would be understandable. Dr. Minsky may in fact be innocent. But this was not the path to take to do that.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:02PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:02PM (#895395)

            There's nothing at all wrong with discussing age of consent laws.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 18 2019, @07:50AM (4 children)

            by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @07:50AM (#895533) Homepage
            > is not a slippery term, in fact it is quite definable legally

            Then why do different jurisdictions define it so differently?

            It's because whilst there are some cases that clearly are, and some cases that clearly aren't, there are other cases which some think are, and others think aren't. That's the very definition of a grey area. If that ain't a slippery term, I don't know what is.
            --
            I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
            • (Score: 1, Redundant) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:38PM (3 children)

              by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @11:38PM (#895893) Journal
              Wrong. Sexual assault is any act of a sexual nature that lacks proper legal consent. Exposing yourself in public will get you on the sex offenders list. And that's the way it should be. If you can't control yourself, then society has to step in and do so.
              --
              SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:15AM (2 children)

                by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:15AM (#896013) Homepage
                > of a sexual nature

                Defined differently in different jurisdictions. Thanks for proving my point.
                --
                I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:30AM (1 child)

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday September 28 2019, @01:30AM (#899764) Journal
                  And yet each jurisdiction has a legal definition so it's not hard to define. Just look it up for your jurisdiction. It's the same as speed limits- different jurisdictions have different definitions of what the limits are set at, but they're not hard to define.
                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
                  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday September 29 2019, @10:45AM

                    by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Sunday September 29 2019, @10:45AM (#900256) Homepage
                    Do you really unable to tell the difference between an abstract concept and a concrete instantiation of that concept?

                    Don't bother responding, as I know in advance you have absolutely nothing of value to say, but go off and ponder whether the colour "orange" is easy to define. After all, crayola managed, pantone managed, and the W3C have also managed it. OK, their definitions differ from each other, but why should little things like disagreement stand in the way of "definition".
                    --
                    I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:28PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:28PM (#895409)

        Saying that a person PRESENTED THEMSELVES AS entirely willing is not the same thing as saying that they were entirely willing.

        Example: Some creepy dude abducts you and takes you to Pedo Island. You're told to act horny, to ask for sex, and to act like you enjoy it. If you refuse, your brother will have his throat sliced. In comes Bill Clinton, or Anthony Weiner, or Dr. Minsky. What do you do? (meanwhile, it is all recorded on secret video for a corrupt or foreign intelligence service)

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:31AM (#895434)

          > Bill Clinton, or Anthony Weiner, or Dr. Minsky

          One of these people is not like the others.

    • (Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @08:21AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @08:21AM (#895537)

      If someone is going travelling around the world looking for a lower age of consent, well there you go. They're knowingly going after girls, not women - namely, children.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:18AM

        by FatPhil (863) <reversethis-{if.fdsa} {ta} {tnelyos-cp}> on Thursday September 19 2019, @08:18AM (#896014) Homepage
        Oh, christ, we've got someone who considered age to be binary. Noone versed in either the medical or psychological literature thinks that's a useful model to have. There is a *clear* distinction between a preference for pre-pubescent children, and for post-pubescent minors.
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.
    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:40PM (1 child)

      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:40PM (#895607) Journal
      He said it was most likely they went along willingly. He totally brushed aside any questions of grooming by predators. and the age of consent. Even adults who were groomed when they were younger don't have proper consent - same as adults with Stockholm Syndrome.

      Stallman is the pseudo-intellectuals pseudo-intellectual. At 66 he still has the maturity of a teenager.

      --
      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:21PM (#895846)

        I don't think you read the actual emails.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:26PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:26PM (#895850)

      yeah, and he has the guts to bring up this third rail shit in an effort to make nuanced points and the bolshevik zombies freak out. i don't know that i'd agree with all of his positions but the fact that we can't even know what they are without hiring a PI, and he's whined out of his job is pitiful.

      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:24AM

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:24AM (#895911) Journal
        If this were an isolated incident, his protestations would be more credible.

        He has a history of creepy-old-manisms towards women. Then again, the videos of him eating his toe jam while giving a talk show that he's the type of guy who you have to take anywhere twice - once for the event, the second time to apologize.

        My sky looks blue. I don't think his world has the same sky. Rationality without awareness is just uninformed stupidity. In his case, he used his reputation for social ineptness as a weapon, because he's not that stupid, but he thinks everyone else is. Typical narcissist.

        But hey, it's not like he'll be missed. The only thing he's done for years of note is to keep pushing the stupid GNU/Linux label. It's like he's STILL not aware that Linux already stands for Linux is not Unix, so Gnus not Unix is a redundancy - and totally inaccurate since there's software like the Gnu Image Manipulation Program that would properly be called IMP instead or GIMP when running on Windows. Then again, it should just be called IMP on all platforms, avoid all controversies over derogatory terms towards people.

        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19 2019, @03:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19 2019, @03:15PM (#896108)

      Sadly US law and purtianism has pushed the term pedophile far away from its medical meaning.

      You can now be labeled a pedophile if you are a day younger than 18 and send a nude photo of yourself to another person of the same age.

      But it still produce the image of someone ramming their hand down a diaper when used.

      And going by RMS' last line in his old comment on the topic, it may well be that we was using the legal term rather than the medical term. Notice that not only is he talking about "voluntary" but also "maturing".

      Suggesting that what he had in mind was not someone prepubescent, but someone that had already been developing sexual characteristics and emotions. And that in turn suggest someone that is biologically of age, if not legally of age.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bussdriver on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:10AM (14 children)

    by bussdriver (6876) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:10AM (#895024)

    The man changed the world and gets a lot of flack for all the good he did. He's old and probably tired of fighting all the BS then to get this INSANITY amplified by the internet mob looking to lynch anybody because either they can't lynch those who deserve it or because they have no real purpose to their empty lives.

    I can totally understand why he did it; I would give up under the pressure of BS that would stick with me for the rest my life and distract from my life's work, the causes I work for and participate in, to undermine all of that and WASTE energy trying to go against the mob. Just RETIRE and let the morons march on and don't waste energy against the masses of morons who out number you and make you have to reach their level only to find deaf ears. An academic discussion is IMPOSSIBLE on important topics today and the formerly sheltered academic environment no longer can discuss stuff the slow people couldn't comprehend; now it only takes 1 to leak things out to the internet where context, reading comprehension, personal relationships, and intelligence can not thrive...

    On top of all that you have supposed friends who turn out to be cowards in your time of need and the ones who resent or want to replace you end up stabbing you in the back. It makes a person give up on humanity; at least for a while. One finds out how little quality humans there are out there...

    Stallman should have waited until the disgust and anger subsided... but he'd still would have had a lot of BS to deal with. One shouldn't make rash decisions; reality is the twitter mob crowd has a short attention span and memory. Right now is the peak of the mob and he should have secluded himself -- but having a history of taking problems on, he couldn't go on leave from the fight.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:23AM (11 children)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:23AM (#895028) Journal

      Should have waited?? I don't understand why RMS said anything at all on this subject. Epstein's crimes haven't anything to do with Free Software.

      Maybe you're right, he is getting old, and this incident is proof that his mind is slipping.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:40AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:40AM (#895035)
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Nuke on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:01PM

          by Nuke (3162) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:01PM (#895165)

          Fucking linked website promptly installed about 150 kB of cookies. I promptly deleted them. Good example of the type of crap RMS campaigned against.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:52AM (5 children)

        by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:52AM (#895040)

        I see no reason why Stallman can't have opinions about things other than FOSS.

        He should have as much right to do exactly what we're doing right now - commenting on something that is unrelated to our work (assuming you are not a lawyer in the Epstein case, a child-protection worker or a member of the media covering the matter).

        I haven't bothered to read RMS's views on the matter, but it does bother me that the lynch mob can so easily get someone sacked these days. I wonder if they feel any hypocrisy in taking down RMS, yet claiming discrimination if someone is sacked for political, religious etc views?

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:19AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:19AM (#895053) Journal

          I haven't bothered to read RMS's views on the matter, but it does bother me that the lynch mob can so easily get someone sacked these days.

          It is what it is, son.
          It may pass while you're still alive, but again it may not. Your choice how you live the rest of your life: bothered or not bothered.

          (I'm not saying anything else than what I said.
          Not saying that any of being or not being bothered is one better than the other; neither I'm implying a value judgement on doing or not doing something about it. I'm just saying:
          - yes, bothered or not, it happens
          - no, it won't come to pass very soon, on the contrary
          - what you do will be your choice)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:03AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:03AM (#895089)

          And express them on the CSAIL mailing list?

          He was attempting to defend Dr. Minsky, which was why it seemed relevant to CSAIL. But the method in which he did it (where he assumed he had all the relevant facts and then did not,) and also giving his personal opinions as to how the law should be, were not correct for that forum.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Nuke on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:17PM (2 children)

          by Nuke (3162) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:17PM (#895178)

          I see no reason why Stallman can't have opinions about things other than FOSS.

          Of course he can, but it is not wise for a well-known figure to go public with opinions on matters outside his own field of expertise. It is like an expert mountaineer thinking he can deal with jumping into a shark pool just because he is an expert on mountains. The experts in that other field can make mincemeat of you. A nonentity like me however can get away with spouting opinions on any subject* because no-one takes any notice anyway :-) It does sound like he is being taken out of context here, easy to do if you are trying to defame someone.

          RMS was once asked why, if he wanted to make the World a better place (as he has said), he does not apply his efforts to solving things like World hunger instead to free software. He wisely replied along the lines that free software happened to be what he is good at, and he would be of much less value trying to solve World hunger - so he left that issue to others. Sounds like he did not really follow his own advice here.

          * Actually I try not to.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:08PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:08PM (#895399)

            You can have opinions about what the age of consent laws should be, and whether something should be thought of as sexual assault. Both of those are subjective, and it doesn't take "experts" to discuss that.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:36AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @09:36AM (#895547)

            but it is not wise for a well-known figure to go public

            As you can see this was not a public mail thread, what you can find our screen grabs from someone making a private communication public. (Which, to me, is the vilest thing that happened to/in that mail thread)
            I don't know how large the audience of this mailing was, but it was not public.

            Furthermore, public figures are allowed to express their opinion on anything. What's wrong and why you advice not to do it, has nothing to do with the public figure but with the inability from today's internet society to be something else than a mob.

            What all these internet platforms fail at, and even the media are bad at, is presenting those opinions as "informed / completely void of any knowledge on the subject / expert on subject matter / direct witness / ..."

      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by snmygos on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:18AM (2 children)

        by snmygos (6274) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @08:18AM (#895071)

        Stallman was defending Minsky.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @12:10PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @12:10PM (#895100)

          Add that Minsky couldn't refute any of those accusations himself because was long dead.

          • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:28PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @01:28PM (#895129) Journal

            Add that Minsky couldn't refute any of those accusations himself because was long dead.

            Consider that RMS wasn't in the best position to refute, but others were [pjmedia.com].

            This is how the hell gets paved with good intentions; in this case, not only RMS was pushed onto his own sword, but also the cacophony created by his attempt took over the message of someone in a better position to provide a refutation.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 2, Offtopic) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:46AM

      by jmichaelhudsondotnet (8122) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @07:46AM (#895061) Journal

      stallman is a carefully selected hobby horse for them to attack so that none of the obviously culpable people at places like the new york times and cnn are brought under any scrutiny.

      It clearly defines the oligarchy, mr stallman has never been in that and they are looking for any possible way to discredit his other ideas.

      'cancel culture' is perpeturated by the oligarchy, all of the members who, like epstein demonstrated, have vast PR firms at their disposal and these lynch mobs, mostly smoke and mirrors, can be deployed at the push of a button.

      See my comment below, 'entire oligarchy proved to be doing exactly what we are told they never due, only person who is shamed for it is richard stallman.'

      In other news bicyclists need to get licenses and vaping is outlawed, race tensions between blacks and whites are seriously inflamed, 5 random shootings in a week completely clears the news cycle. Vice news ran soft humanizing pieces on pedophiles and pro-jewish stories the week after his death with no investigation into that death. Fear the walking dead had an older jewish man rescuing a 13 year old girl with an M16, odd coincidence doin't you think?

      You can really see the outlines of a real cult by how the media handles this, and anyone who doesn't step up to condemn it loudly is telling us something about themselves and we should listen.

      And anyone who thinks epstein is dead or that he only victimized 'post-pubescent' children has a real special case of gullibility.

    • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:39AM

      by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:39AM (#895919) Journal
      He didn't change the world. Most free software developers still need a day job, so free software is a hobby, not a profession. Part of that is because free software destroys software-development jobs.

      This resulted in a software ecosystem with far fewer choices for both developers and users. Monocultures and duopolies are the end result, and that's what we have today. How many browsers? Even Microsoft is dropping out. How many mobile phone systems? Two, and the free one rapes it's users relentlessly for their data. How many operating systems? Windows and OSX. Not a single Linux distro has even 1% share, thanks to forms of forms of forms. Everyone has a fork, and wants to get paid to maintain it (look we started a company so people will now give us money ... that goes beyond wishful thinking - it's pure magical pixie dust).

      Free software will never be able to solve the money problem. That's why there's still a market for paid software. It commands a level of engagement that working in your spare time on free software cannot.

      --
      SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:35AM (20 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:35AM (#895031)

    "Entirely willingly"? This is what these people will never understand. Children cannot "will". They are not competent to make contracts, they cannot enlist in the military, and they cannot vote, and they certainly cannot "consent" to fuck Stallman, ESR, Ted Nugent, or Ted Cruz, no matter what the Bible says. So get this through your head, "No means no, and 'yes' by a minor still means 'no'". This is why the Runaway1956 confines hisself to livestock. While they, too, cannot grant consent, they also cannot tattle on you. Except for the DNA evidence, that comes (so to speak) out as foreign matter contamination in the sausage. Pro, or just plain common sense, tip: Never eat sausage from Arkansas.

    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:42AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:42AM (#895037)

      16 and 17 year olds can consent to sexual activity in the majority of the U.S.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by barbara hudson on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:53AM

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday September 19 2019, @12:53AM (#895922) Journal
        There's a 5-year age difference allowance in some states. A 15-year old cannot consent to fuck RMS, despite how he says age should be irrelevant. And some states are so hill-billy white pride backwards that they can marry their underage first cousins. Same thing with uneducated people being Trump supporters. And being against same sex relationships, even though their pastors keep getting caught in all sorts of sexual hijinks. But, like Trump, they get a pass.

        RMS is trying to defend the indefensible, because he doesn't understand people, and he thinks that people should change their way of thinking rather than having any personal insight into the huge gaps in his knowledge.

        If aliens with an IQ of 2,500 came to earth he'd be telling them that they were wrong because he is a narcissist.

        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19 2019, @03:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 19 2019, @03:36PM (#896120)

        But if they send a nudie pic to their classmate they suddenly found themselves at the sharp end of a pedo conviction...

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:47AM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:47AM (#895039)

      https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9ke3ke/famed-computer-scientist-richard-stallman-described-epstein-victims-as-entirely-willing [vice.com]

      Stallman emphatically did not say this woman was willing. He said that those who had sex with her may have thought she was (and may have thought she was legal -- in the incident discussed, she was 17 -- can you tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old without looking at their birth certificate?) , in that Epstein was coercing her to do this stuff -- and she likely didn't parade in and say, "Jeff is forcing me to have sex with you. Let's get naked."

      Stallman's argument (which in no way blamed the woman involved and in no way excused her treatment or Epstein's crimes) was cogent and logical. And it in no way did any victim blaming. At all.

      Why don't you read the email thread and decide for yourself?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Pino P on Tuesday September 17 2019, @02:13PM (6 children)

        by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @02:13PM (#895148) Journal

        can you tell the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old without looking at their birth certificate?

        Neither can tobacco dealers. This is why they ask for ID [wecard.org] before selling tobacco or vapor products.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by chewbacon on Tuesday September 17 2019, @02:37PM

          by chewbacon (1032) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @02:37PM (#895157)

          This! I was maybe 21, DJing a highschool dance (great way to earn beer money and when it's a club, meet women). Some girl came up asked if I wanted to hang out sometime, gave me her number. I peered at her "How old are you??" "I'm 19, I swear." "You look the same age as everyone here!" "No, no, I'm chaperoning my sister." "This is gonna sound really out of place, but do you have ID?" She produced it. We went out once.

          A friend of a friend didn't exercise this kind of caution and ended up ruining his life over a 15 year old girl when he was 18. Hearsay story goes something like: she was really into me, she told me she was 16 (which is legal in that state, a 16yo and 18yo could knock boots). Could've prevented it if he stopped thinking with his penis and used his brain for a second.

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday September 17 2019, @04:13PM (4 children)

          by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 17 2019, @04:13PM (#895229)

          And they NEVER have fake ID either.

          --
          Dealing out the agony within
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:10PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @11:10PM (#895400)

            And to makes matters worse, a fake ID isn't a valid defense for statutory rape.

            • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:54AM (2 children)

              by Pino P (4721) on Wednesday September 18 2019, @12:54AM (#895448) Journal

              What other than marriage is a valid defense for statutory rape?

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @02:41AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 18 2019, @02:41AM (#895475)

                Ah, yes, the marriage exception, where full-grown adults can repeatedly rape and impregnate little girls. That truly makes me believe that society cares about protecting children, and that it isn't just some phony outrage by-and-large.

                • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday September 19 2019, @01:04AM

                  by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday September 19 2019, @01:04AM (#895930) Journal

                  Maybe in the US, but in Canada sexual assault is sexual assault, marriage or no marriage. Surreptitiously removing a condom during sex is also sexual assault. No valid consent == rape. Withdrawal of consent during the act, you don't stop, == rape. Too drunk to give proper consent, even with consent, == rape.

                  Don't like it, get a RealDoll or continue dating Thumbellina and her four sisters.

                  When 97% of sexual assaults against women don't result in a conviction, and womaen are afraid to go through a dehumanizing process that 97% of the time gives back a big "fuck you bitch", it's not like the odds of getting convicted are much of a disincentive.

                  --
                  SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:54AM (5 children)

      by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:54AM (#895042) Journal
      "Children cannot "will"."

      This is not at all consistent with my memories of childhood.

      "They are not competent to make contracts"

      Typically true, but not always. C.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors

      There's a subtle point that too often gets massacred here. It is indeed the case that we have an assumption in law that a minor cannot consent. This is done for good reason, don't get me wrong. But it's actively harmful to minors, particularly those who are victims of abuse, to pretend there is NO DIFFERENCE between violently forcing them and impermissably enticing them. They may both be illegal under the same statute, but they're very different cases in other ways. Confusing the two can cause unnecessary and inappropriate pain and shame to the victims going both directions.

      Children DO have will. They are merely presumed to be insufficiently prepared to rely on it.
      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:06PM (4 children)

        by choose another one (515) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @03:06PM (#895168)

        It is indeed the case that we have an assumption in law that a minor cannot consent.

        Who is the "we" with that assumption?

        Age of majority relates solely to legal control over one's person / actions (and hence to contracts, although with some exceptions as you say).
        Age of consent for sex, as with age of license for other actions, is totally unrelated, if it is the same where you are that is pure coincidence.

        A lot of US states have age-of-consent below 18, most of Europe is 14-16 (yes, you read that right 14 - heck, Spain was 12 before the millennium) - and many of those have further exceptions which reduce it in the case of similar aged participants. Elsewhere in the world it's even more variable if anything.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe [wikipedia.org]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority [wikipedia.org]

        Children DO have will.

        Hell yes - as any parent knows, even before they hit their teens. Their competency in exercising it doesn't magically appear at age of majority either.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:36PM (3 children)

          by Arik (4543) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:36PM (#895312) Journal
          "Who is the "we" with that assumption?"

          Pretty much the entire planet reflects that assumption in law to some degree.

          "Age of majority relates solely to legal control over one's person / actions (and hence to contracts, although with some exceptions as you say).
          Age of consent for sex, as with age of license for other actions, is totally unrelated, if it is the same where you are that is pure coincidence."

          I disagree completely, they are not at all unrelated. They're rooted in the same rationale. The minor variations in the specifics do not alter that.

          "A lot of US states have age-of-consent below 18, most of Europe is 14-16 (yes, you read that right 14 - heck, Spain was 12 before the millennium)"

          IIRC Mississippi allowed 13 in certain circumstances until recently. But so what? It doesn't change the underlying assumption driving the laws, you're talking about fine-tuning the arbitrary cutoff points. You can smoke and drive at one age, drink at another, that doesn't mean the laws that say this aren't based on the same fundamental assumption.

          --
          If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
          • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Wednesday September 18 2019, @01:46PM (2 children)

            by choose another one (515) on Wednesday September 18 2019, @01:46PM (#895635)

            you're talking about fine-tuning the arbitrary cutoff points. You can smoke and drive at one age, drink at another, that doesn't mean the laws that say this aren't based on the same fundamental assumption.

            That common assumption is that there should be a cutoff point in age, this is very different to "assumption in law that a minor cannot consent".

            What I disagreed with, and still do, is that the cutoff point is assumed to be the same for not-being-a-minor and consent-to-sex - for a lot of (maybe most of) the planet it quite simply isn't.

            • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 19 2019, @05:37AM (1 child)

              by Arik (4543) on Thursday September 19 2019, @05:37AM (#895996) Journal
              "That common assumption is that there should be a cutoff point in age,"

              That the younger people are not yet prepared to rely on their own judgement and/or will.

              "this is very different to "assumption in law that a minor cannot consent"."

              Is it? Isn't the whole idea of minority that young people are not completely prepared to exercise judgement?
              --
              If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
              • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Friday September 20 2019, @10:01AM

                by choose another one (515) on Friday September 20 2019, @10:01AM (#896444)

                > Isn't the whole idea of minority that young people are not completely prepared to exercise judgement?

                No. The whole idea of minority is that someone else (usually parent/guardian) has legal/financial control over, and responsibility for, your affairs. Nothing more.

                You may be confusing minority with "age of license" which is a general legal concept of being old enough to have permission to do something in law (including, but not limited to, consent to sex). The fact that minors around the world can, and do, legally consent to sex, demonstrates clearly that the law considers minors adequately prepared to exercise judgement for the purposes of consent to sex.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:40PM (2 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:40PM (#895315)

      What the hell does any of this have to do with Runaway? Stop with the bitching already

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @06:55PM (#895319)

        Runaway, khallow, alt-right, etc etc live rent free in aristarchu's head, so they're always on topic!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 17 2019, @10:51PM (#895391)

        DFTT? Just a thought.

(1) 2